"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson
There are many back-door gun-control bills this session. In fact, it’s been getting hard to keep track of them all. But one of the more bizarre ones is HB 247, the "dating violence" bill sponsored by Rep. David Litvack. GOUtah! strongly opposes the "dating violence" bill because this badly misnamed piece of legislation could, according to our analysis, very easily be used to strip you of your gun rights even if you haven’t committed a single act of violence.
HB 247 would allow someone you’ve dated to obtain a domestic violence protective order against you, even if you’ve only been on a few dates with that person. Note that anyone can already obtain a regular protective order under the existing law if they can show cause. But HB 247 would enable someone with whom you’ve had a loosely-defined "dating relationship" to get a special high-powered domestic violence protective order (the same type of order issued in cases of spousal abuse), which could have the effect of stripping you of your right to possess a firearm as long as the protective order remains in effect, without even the benefit of a jury trial. And, under the terms of HB 247, it would be incredibly easy for your girlfriend or boyfriend (or your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend, or even someone you’ve merely dated a few times) to get such a "domestic violence" protective order issued if they were angry at you for some reason, even if you’ve never threatened that person with violence. HB 247 would give the judge who issues the order broad discretion to include a ban on gun ownership as part of the protective order, in which case you would be required to surrender all your firearms.
HB 247 defines a "dating relationship" as "a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, regardless of whether the relationship involves sexual intimacy." That’s a pretty vague and broad definition, in our view.
Thus, if you merely go on a few dates with someone and maybe give them flowers or receive flowers from them, this could be interpreted as a "dating relationship" under HB 247.
What’s equally alarming is that the definition of 'dating violence" given in HB 247 is extremely broad and includes a lot of non-violent acts.
Under this bill, as we interpret it, anyone with whom you are (or ever have been) in a "dating relationship" could get a "dating violence" protective order issued against you very easily. HB 247 provides an enormous variety of ways for them to get one. Here’s one example: If someone you’ve been dating accuses you of "electronic communication harassment", i.e., calling them too often or sending them too many e-mail messages, they can get a "dating violence" protective order against you. Once this order has been issued, the judge issuing the order will have the power to make you surrender all your firearms even though you haven’t done anything violent and even though you haven’t been tried for or convicted of a crime.
We can envision many scenarios where a jilted dating partner might want to get even by taking out a "dating violence" protective order against the other person.
Based on our research of federal gun law, it does not appear that the proposed "dating violence" protective order would trigger the federal Lautenberg domestic-violence gun ban, because the federal law does not cover dating relationships. However, HB 247 would empower any Utah judge who issues a "dating violence" protective order to include a ban on firearms ownership as part of the order. This gun-banning authority is already written into the portion of the Utah Code that deals with domestic-violence protective orders, and HB 247 would insert "dating violence" into that same portion of the code, putting "dating violence" in the same category as domestic violence from the standpoint of state law. Thus, the ban on gun ownership would be handled under state law rather than federal law. But it would still be a ban on gun ownership, and it could easily be based on flimsy cause.
[For] the full text of the bill: [click here and select either the PDF or HTML version].
HB 247 will likely be heard later this week by the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee.
If your own representative is a member of this committee, we encourage you to contact him and tell him that you oppose HB 247 because it is a back-door gun-control bill. Here are the names and e-mail addresses of the committee members.
| Bud Bowman | bbowman@utah.gov | (435)586-8174 |
| Curt Oda | coda@utah.gov | (801)898-6875 |
| Brad Dee | bdee@utah.gov | (801)479-5495 |
| Rebecca Lockhart | blockhart@utah.gov | (801)369-6784 |
| Michael Morley | mikemorley@utah.gov | (801)636-0296 |
| Paul Ray | pray@utah.gov | (801)725-2719 |
| Jennifer Seelig | jseelig@utah.gov | (801)519-2544 |
| Kenneth Sumsion | ksumsion@utah.gov | (801)404-8825 |
| Larry Wiley | lwiley@utah.gov | (801)487-8095 |
| Carl Wimmer | cwimmer@utah.gov | (801)608-4763 |
Alternatively, you may send a letter or Ffax to any of these representatives at the Capitol, or you may leave a brief message at the House switchboard. Capitol Hill contact info is provided below.
Utah State House of Representatives
"If you care about animals, you should know there's a terrible bill in committee (SB117) that takes away all penalties for cruelty and torture of farm animals. It rolls back all the animal-protection progress that's been made in the last 20 years. It's being "sold" as a compromise animal protection bill, but in fact it's terrible for animals.
Please contact your state senators and tell them to kill SB117, that it makes Republicans look like heavy-handed tyrants. Tell them you want SB102 passed — a good bill that really will protect animals from deliberate cruelty and torture."
-- Connie Blaine, in a letter printed in the Deseret Morning News, 9 February 2008.
Date:
From:
To:
Dear Representative :
As a gun owner and active voter living in your district, I encourage you to vigorously oppose HB 247, the "dating violence" bill. This is a gun-control bill, because it would enable someone you’ve merely dated a few times to easily take out a domestic-violence protective order against you even if you haven’t committed a single act of violence – and this type of high-powered protective order empowers the judge issuing the order to prohibit you from possessing a firearm. Domestic-violence protective orders should be reserved for cases of actual domestic violence (such as spouse abuse) and should not be extended to vaguely defined "dating relationships".
Under the terms of HB 247, it’s easy to envision a jilted dating partner "getting even" by taking out a "dating violence" protective order based, for example, on the claim that their "ex" phoned or e- mailed them too frequently. The "ex" may then be required to surrender his or her firearms to the authorities without a trial.
I believe that any bill that allows a person’s Second Amendment rights to be revoked on such flimsy grounds deserves to be defeated.
Thanks for taking time to consider my opinion on this matter.
Sincerely,
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #284 for 12 February 2008. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights.
Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless You Act On It Today. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal!
Return to GOUtah! Archive Index
Return to GOUtah! Home Page